Lumbar Spine Stability for Subjects With and Without Low Back Pain During One-Leg Standing Test

Sung, Paul S.; Yoon, BumChul; Lee, Dongchul C.

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d53b9c

Cited by 64 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As we hypothesized, subjects with LBP demonstrated shorter holding duration times than the control subjects. This result is consistent with other studies which concluded that the control group demonstrated better stability than the patient group [2]. Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…There are receptors responsible for this information which could be affected by dysfunction in the lumbar spine [7]. Accordingly, subjects with LBP may have altered postural control and balance deficits as well as reduced proprioception in the spine, which have been reported in several studies [2,3,7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Poor postural alignment, dynamic standing balance, and postural strategies are often found in individuals with chronic low back pain (LBP) [1][2][3]. Control of postural balance is a complex function involving numerous neuromuscular processes which are dependent upon sensory input from the vestibular, visual, and somatosensory systems [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A kinematic analysis of relative stability of the lower extremities between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

Song²,

Lee³

et al. 2011

Eur Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though a number of studies have evaluated postural adjustments based on kinematic changes in subjects with low back pain (LBP), kinematic stability has not been examined for abnormal postural responses during the one leg standing test. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative kinematic stability of the lower extremities and standing duration in subjects with and without chronic LBP. In total, 54 subjects enrolled in the study, including 28 subjects without LBP and 26 subjects with LBP. The average age of the subjects was 37.8 ± 12.6 years and ranged from 19 to 63 years. The outcome measures included normalized holding duration and relative kinematic stability. All participants were asked to maintain the test position without visual input (standing on one leg with his/her eyes closed and with the contra lateral hip flexed 90°) for 25 s. The age variable was used as a covariate to control confounding effects for the data analyses. The control group demonstrated significantly longer holding duration times (T = -2.78, p = 0.007) than the LBP group (24.6 ± 4.2 s vs. 20.5 ± 6.7 s). For the relative kinematic stability, there was a difference in dominance side (F = 9.91, p = 0.003). There was a group interaction between side and lower extremities (F = 11.79, p = 0.001) as well as an interaction between age and dominance side (F = 7.91, p = 0.007). The relative kinematic stability had a moderate negative relationship with age (r = -0.60, p = 0.007) in subjects without LBP. Clinicians need to understand the effects of age and relative stability, which decreased significantly in the single leg holding test, in subjects with LBP in order to develop effective rehabilitation strategies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A kinematic analysis of relative stability of the lower extremities between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

Song²,

Lee³

et al. 2011

Eur Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The method of computation was based on mathematical techniques, and kinematic joint angles were derived from the direction cosine matrices of the sensors [22,23]. The reliability of the motion analysis system has also been reported and confirmed with previous studies [2,24,26].…”

Section: Outcome Measuressupporting

confidence: 72%

“…The trunk rotations were defined as voluntary exertions, and the subjects were instructed to turn their shoulders, hips, and knees without moving their feet. They were given disposable hospital slipper socks with nonskid bottoms to wear during the test and had the Helen Hayes full body (with head) reflective marker set attached to specific sites on their bodies [24][25][26].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting shoulder–pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Shoulder-pelvic integration could play a central role in the control of dynamic posture and movement. However, kinematic coordination during axial trunk rotation has not been carefully investigated in subjects with recurrent low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the maximum rotational angles of the shoulders and pelvis in the transverse plane between subjects with and without recurrent LBP. Materials and methods A total of 38 age-matched subjects (19 control subjects: 69.00 ± 5.75 years old and 19 subjects with LBP: 68.79 ± 5.40 years old) participated in the study. The axial trunk rotation test was conducted in the upright position with bilateral hips and knees fully extended and both feet shoulder width apart. Results The results of this study indicated that there was a difference in pelvic girdle rotation between groups (100.79 ± 26.46 in the control group, 82.12 ± 23.16 in the LBP group; t = 2.31, p = 0.02); however, there was no difference for the shoulder girdle (177.63 ± 36.98 in the control group, 156.42 ± 30.09 in the LBP group; t = 1.91, p = 0.06). There were interactions with age (F = 9.27, p = 0.004) and BMI (F = 7.50, p = 0.01) with the rotational angles of the shoulder and pelvis. Conclusion These results indicated a different pattern of trunk rotation movement with the age and BMI serving as important factors to consider for recurrent LBP. The results of our study also indicated a different pattern of shoulder and pelvic coordination with age and gender. Clinicians need to consider the consequences of limited shoulderpelvic rotational angles, especially limited rotational angle on the pelvis during trunk axial rotation. Further studies are required to determine the causes of the underlying problems for clinical decision-making and altered shoulderpelvic rotation in subjects with recurrent LBP.

show abstract

Die stationäre multimodale Schmerztherapie

Giesche

Streicher

Maiwald

et al. 2016

Schmerz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the use of an additional NCSE, no significant added value in individuals with CLBP could be detected, although a systematic pre-post effect in daily functions and physical well-being (one week after discharge) was observed for the IG only. Therefore, on the basis of the study results, the implementation of additional NCSE into the inpatient MPT cannot be clearly recommended. To further delineate the therapeutic relevance, studies with larger sample sizes are needed.

show abstract

Lumbar Spine Stability for Subjects With and Without Low Back Pain During One-Leg Standing Test

Cited by 64 publications

References 24 publications

A kinematic analysis of relative stability of the lower extremities between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

A kinematic analysis of relative stability of the lower extremities between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

Factors affecting shoulder–pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain

Die stationäre multimodale Schmerztherapie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About